yang hu <yanghu@***uci***.edu.> wrote in article
<7d0pkb$8u9 at news.service.uci.edu>...
> Alex Vange wrote:
>> > The verse is about a damsel that is seduced rather than raped. It
> > doesn't actually say this but in verse 24 it tells what happens if the
> > damsel doesn't cry out.
>> Nonsense, Du 22:28 refers to rape; the orginal Hebrew term "taphas"
> means 'to seize', as in man's seizure of the maiden.
>> sounds like rape to me.
But you did ignore what I wrote, which was verse 24 is about a case of
a damsel that doesn't cry out about it, which means that in that culture
thousands of years ago a damsel might not object too much to the situation.
>> > This shows that the culture was different thousands
> > of years ago and the damsel might not object too much.
>> are you saying that Jews like to be raped?
They might not object as much as in todays culture and they were not
Jews.
The chosen people are the White people, not the Jews. Jews are
mostly Khazars and Edomites. These are races that adopted the religion of
Judaism and now they falsely claim to be Israelites.
Jews claim to be God's chosen people because they have the Jewish
religion. This proves nothing. People change their religion. The Edomites
and the Khazars became Jewish but they are not Israelites by race. The real
Israelites changed their religion and became Christians.
Christ said in Mathew 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of
the house of Israel."
He came for the chosen race and sheep are a symbol for the chosen race, but
this is what He said to the Jews:
John 10:26+27 "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I
said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me"
This means the real Israelites converted to Christianity. This
explains why Europe became known as Christendom.
The Israelites were direct descendants of Adam, who was the first
White man. The Hebrew word "adam" describes a White man. We are not the
color white like milk. We are a light skinned race and the light skin
allows blood, the color red to show in the cheeks. This is the definition
of the word "adam" in Strong's Concordance:
"to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:- be (dyed,
made) red (ruddy)."
This can only be describing a White man. Look at people today and see
which ones have rosy red cheeks. They are light skinned White people. The
Israelites were White.
The Bible says David was ruddy. This is the definition of the Hebrew
word "ruddy":
"reddish (of the hair or of the complexion):-red, ruddy."
David had rosy cheeks (or red hair) and did not look like a typical
Jew.
The Bible says the Israelites would be a blessing to the world. It
is the White race that invented all the great things and advanced
civilization on the earth.
The Bible tells us that the Jews are imposters.
Revelation 2:9 "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and
are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."
Many verses tell us that Jews are our enemies. Here is one example:
John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not
walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him."
The Jews have been expelled from every Christian nation in Europe at
one time or another. Many people know that they are enemies of White
civilization. But not everyone knows the reason. It is because they are not
the chosen race and they hate those who really are the chosen race.
>> > It is also clear
> > from the chapter that thousands of years ago men would not marry a
damsel
> > that was not a virgin. So verse 29 is saying that if a man robs a
damsel of
> > her virginity he must support her for the rest of her life.
>> oh, that makes it soooo much beter. And how well would the rapist treat
> his new found wife? probably kick 'til she's blcak and blue.
>
No, it is implied that this would not be the case and that the culture
was much different thousands of years ago.
> what a 'moral law' from a 'moral god'
> Someone would have to support a damsel that no one would marry in that
culture.
>> > Your side is equally closed minded. You did make a good point that
in
> > at least this one case there may have been something wrong with the
culture
> > thousands of years ago. If no man would marry a damsel that was not a
> > virgin then the damsel needed to be supported somehow. If that were the
> > case today then the guilty man could be forced to pay for the damsel
the
> > way people pay alimony today rather than living with her.
>>> you are wrong, rapists today don't pay alimony, they go to jail.
True, but what I wrote was that if the point was that the damsel had
to be supported then we could make the guilty man pay, like people pay
alimony today. But since the damsel does not need to be supported today we
should execute the guilty man as it says in verse 25.
>>> >But today the
> > damsel could still marry if she wanted to without any problem so the
guilty
> > man should be put to death as it says in verse 25.
>>> self serving rationalizton. Now the culture is different, so we should
> disregrad Deu 22:28. Well we know for a fact that the universe is older
> than 6000 years, let's drop Genesis too.
>> You ignore the fact that the rapist in verse 25 is to be put to death.
This is the punishment in general.
But in that culture no man would marry a damsel who was not a virgin so the
damsel had to be supported somehow. I agree that that was a bad part of the
culture but it was the way things were.